search_all_accounts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a valuable non-obvious trait: partial-failure tolerance ('Erros de uma conta não interrompem as demais') and that output is grouped by account. It omits read-only/rate-limit/permission behavior and the fact that a fixed folder must exist in every account.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no filler; the aggregate scope is front-loaded and the error-isolation caveat is placed last where it belongs. It is efficient, though it spends a sentence on an example use case rather than on parameter meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter aggregation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the aggregate/fan-out behavior and error isolation. It leaves the entire query-parameter surface and the shape of the per-account results undocumented, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call beyond the defaults.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Ten parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains only one of them indirectly ('mesma pasta em cada uma' implies the folder argument, and results are per account). Nothing is said about to/text/since/before/sender/unseen/flagged/subject or the limit_per_account default of 10, leaving nine arguments semantically bare.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('executa a mesma busca em TODAS as contas') and the aggregation scope ('resultados agrupados por conta'), which clearly separates it from the single-account search_emails sibling. The sibling is never named explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast from the word TODAS.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides one implied use case ('o que chegou de novo em todas as caixas'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It never names search_emails as the narrower alternative, nor states any when-not condition (e.g., don't use for one account only).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.